Analysis of the post-Second
World War situation when serious ideological differences were developing among
the communists in general and between the CPSU and the CPC in
particular.

We have been noticing for quite a long time that mainly on questions relating to war and
peace, policy of peaceful co-existence of the capitalist and socialist systems
and possibility of peaceful realization of socialist revolution in the
capitalist countries, a lot of confusion has arisen in the ideological sphere of
the communists throughout the world. Even if we leave aside the views of the
Communist League of Yugoslavia, it cannot be denied that there exist serious
differences between different communist parties on some of the views of the
present Communist Party of the Soviet Union led by Comrade Khrushchev[1]
as expressed through various speeches and writings of the present leaders of the
CPSU on these questions. The line of argument of the CPSU is, more or less, as
follows. As a result of some "fundamental changes" that have taken place in the
international alignment of social forces since the termination of the Second
World War, some of the universally accepted formulations of Lenin about
imperialism, war and proletarian revolution, etc., which were perfectly valid
before and during the last War, have lost their validity now. To be more
precise, this applies, in the opinion of the present leaders of the CPSU,
particularly to Lenin's proposition about the inevitability of wars in the era
of imperialism and about the prospect of preserving lasting peace in the world.
Besides, though these leaders have not altogether ruled out the law of violent
revolution in the capitalist countries, they are emphasizing more the
possibility of peaceful realization of socialist revolution as the general law
at present. To show the "fundamental difference" in the characteristic features
between imperialism at the time of Lenin and that obtaining at present, they are
saying that since the present era is the era of disintegration of imperialism,
establishment of socialism and of further advancement and development of the
socialist countries, it is not possible to realize the exact significance of
this epoch by the thesis of Lenin on 'imperialism, war and proletarian
revolution'. Hence, according to these leaders, the formulations of Lenin on
questions of war and peace and the general law of development of socialist
revolution in the capitalist countries have lost their validity. Those who are
still clinging to these formulations in the present changed world situation,
therefore, fail to realize the exact significance of the changes in the present
international situation and, consequently, are overestimating the strength of
imperialism and underestimating the strength of the socialist states, the
present-day peace movement and the working class movements going on in all the
countries of the globe.

Not only our
party, the Socialist Unity Centre of India, but also some other communist
parties are finding it difficult to agree with the above observations of the
CPSU. The disagreement mainly centres round the understanding of the principal
characteristic features of the present 'changed' international situation and
their significance. There is no divergence of opinion as to the correctness of
the policy of peaceful co-existence in so far as the theory is concerned and the
possibility of preserving peace in the present international situation. The
difference lies precisely in the understanding of the revolutionary significance
of the policy of peaceful co-existence, in the objective measures to be adopted
to safeguard world peace and in co-relating these two with revolutionary
struggles of the working class in different capitalist countries and the
national liberation struggles in colonial and semi-colonial countries.
Difference also exists on the question — whether the law of inevitability of
wars in the era of imperialism propounded by Lenin still holds good in the
'changed' situation of today. There is difference again on the question as to
how far it is possible now to accomplish socialist revolution in the capitalist
countries peacefully. Over and above these differences, there is the further
difference on the idea that socialism can be established by "transforming
parliament from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the
people's will." Even if it is assumed for argument's sake that peaceful
realization of socialist revolution in the capitalist countries is possible in
the present 'changed' international situation, is it Marxian to conclude that
the parliamentary way of achieving socialism is one of the various forms of
peaceful socialist revolution ?

All these
matters are of vital interest to the communists and have posed serious problems
to them. Without a correct and scientific understanding of these questions it
will be impossible for the communists to carry to success the national
liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies, the struggles for the
establishment of socialism in metropolitan capitalist countries and the
worldwide anti-war peace movement. So it is of utmost importance to analyse and
examine the above matters on the anvil of Marxist-Leninist methodology and
outlook, keeping in view the present international situation. For that it is
first of all necessary to have a correct idea about the present international
situation and its principal features.

Before the
Second World War the whole world, with the solitary exception of the USSR, was
under either the direct rule or effective political and economic influence of
the imperialist-capitalists. The solitary socialist country, too, was then
encircled by world imperialism-capitalism. No country other than the Soviet
Union at that time fought at the state level seriously and sincerely for the
preservation of international peace. But in spite of its sincere efforts to
preserve world peace, the USSR had not enough strength to thwart the sinister
drives of the mighty imperialist powers for war. On the contrary, since the
imperialist-capitalists commanded the decisive force, they had, so to say, the
last word on the questions of war and peace. Consequently, wars broke out as and
when the expedience of imperialism-capitalism demanded so. After the Second
World War, a powerful world socialist system comprising the People's Democracies
of Europe, Mongolia, North Korea and North Vietnam, headed by the USSR and
China, has come into being. This has led to the birth of a world socialist
market parallel to the world capitalist market. As a result of the dropping out
of the vast territory that now constitutes the world socialist market from the
chain of capitalist system, the world capitalist market has contracted to a
large extent. The existence and development of the world socialist market
coupled with the continuously growing strength of the socialist camp have been
able to corner the imperialists considerably in the post-War period.
Intensification of the anti-imperialist national liberation movements of the
peoples in colonies and semi-colonies and the retreat of the imperialists in the
face of mounting surge of these movements are important milestones of the
present era. Guided by pragmatic consideration, the imperialists are
changing their old colonial policy — they are handing over power to the national
bourgeoisie of the colonies and through agreements and treaties are trying to
maintain their economic interests in their former colonies. The bourgeoisie of
the newly independent former colonial countries in Asia and Africa are not only
reconstructing the national economy of these countries, which is further
continuously contracting the market of the powerful capitalist countries, but
are also in some cases coming out as competitors to the major capitalist
countries in the already contracted world capitalist market. All these factors —
the existence and development of world socialist market coupled with the
continuously growing strength of the socialist camp, the growing tide of
national liberation struggles in colonies and semi-colonies, the loss of
traditional markets in the former colonies, the appearance of the bourgeoisie of
the former colonies as new competitors in the arena of international trade —
taken together have tremendously intensified the various forms of contradictions
within the world imperialist-capitalist system and are thereby hastening the
process of complete disintegration of the imperialist colonial system. In this
connection it must be borne in mind that though capitalist economy entered the
period of general crisis long ago, yet during the period between the First and
the Second World Wars, in spite of world-wide depression and tendency of decay
and stagnation, capitalism as a whole was developing far more rapidly than
before, precisely because of the existence of "relative stability" which the
capitalist market then enjoyed. But under the new conditions in which the world
capitalist economy is placed today the 'law of relative stability of capitalist
world market' is no more valid. In expanding their respective economic and
political influence, the imperialists, therefore, are finding it still harder to
reconcile their conflicting interests, resulting in the contradictions between
them taking a naked shape. And the more acute the crisis is becoming, the more
frantically the imperialists are militarizing their economy. Of course, these
are nothing but attempts, in vain, by the imperialist-capitalist countries to
maintain, at least temporarily, the relative stability of the capitalist market
through artificial stimulation by constantly increasing military
consumption.

In the context of this international situation, the question of war and peace is to be viewed.
It goes without saying that at present the united strength of the socialist
countries alone [2] is
superior to that of the imperialist powers in some respects. On top of it, the
newly independent resurgent bourgeois nationalist states of Asia and Africa have
sided with the forces of world peace, of course temporarily, in the very
interest of their economic development [3] Besides,
the peace loving peoples of the whole world are today against all unjust wars
and heartily support all the drives of the socialist camp for safeguarding
international peace. On the other hand, the antagonism between the powerful
imperialist countries has become more naked and pronounced; the working class
movements in the metropolitan capitalist countries are gaining in strength and
the national liberation movements in colonies are making tremendous headway —
all these factors combined together have weakened the strength of imperialism
greatly. In short, the forces of peace, at present, are stronger than the forces
of war and now it is possible for the peace loving peoples of the world
organized under the leadership of the socialist peace camp to thrust peace upon
the bellicose imperialist powers and prevent them from interfering in the
domestic affairs of other countries. As a result of these favourable conditions,
there exist real possibilities for preserving world peace. But it will be wrong
to conclude from the above that Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably
generates wars has become obsolete owing to the new conditions in favour of
peace. Because, though imperialism today does not exist as an all-embracing
world system as in the past and is much weaker than before, yet there is no
reasonable ground to think that imperialism will spontaneously die out or that
it has lost all its power to strike and start wars. For, imperialism not only
exists now as a world system, it still continues in force. Hard-pressed on all
sides and rent with mounting crises, imperialism is turning more and more to
militarized economy. And the more militarized the economy is becoming, the more
rabid imperialism is prone to be in its adventurist acts. In the matter of
armament race and all-out preparations for war, the imperialists have broken all
their past records. The military bases which the imperialists have built around
the socialist camp are full of lethal weapons of mass destruction kept ready for
action at a moment's notice. In West Germany, the imperialists have revived
German Revanchism. In Japan, militarism has been fully restored. Though under
pressure of circumstances the imperialists have been forced to modify their old
colonial policy, yet their aggressive policy has not changed a whit. The
antagonism based on competition between the powerful capitalist countries for
establishing economic and political supremacy over weak and backward capitalist
countries is intensifying day by day. All these facts show beyond doubt that
Lenin's thesis about the inevitability of wars in the era of imperialism is
still valid as before.

Anyone with correct understanding of the dialectical materialist principle that
"quantitative change leads to qualitative change" should have no difficultly to
understand that despite whatever quantitative and qualitative changes the other
contending forces, moving centring round the basic contradiction within a given
phenomenon, may undergo in the process of development of the phenomenon, until
and unless the quantitative changes grow to reach a nodal point and the
phenomenon itself is qualitatively changed through revolutionary transformation
to give rise to a new phenomenon, the principal characteristic feature of the
given phenomenon does not disappear and the internal motive forces that
determine this principal characteristic feature continue to be in force. So,
every Marxist-Leninist should know that every epoch is bound to witness, in the
natural process of its development, various vital changes. But notwithstanding
these changes, the principal characteristic features of the epoch remain in
force till an altogether new epoch emerges on the ashes of the old
one.>

In the present changed international situation, to speak in general terms that war is no longer
inevitable is one thing — and a very good thing too — but to confuse this with
the concept that Lenin's thesis about the inevitability of wars in the epoch of
imperialism has become obsolete today is an altogether different thing and
fraught with so many dangers. In this connection, another point must always be
kept in mind. Of course it is true that due to polarization of world social
forces, the contradiction between the imperialist war camp, led by the US, and
the socialist peace camp, headed by the USSR and China, in the present alignment
of world social forces principally determines the course of international
events. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that the root cause of wars
does not lie in this contradiction. It lies precisely in the antagonistic
contradiction between the imperialist-capitalist countries for capture of
markets.

It would be
possible to banish war for good from human society only when socialist
revolution would become victorious throughout the world or when the present
capitalist encirclement will be replaced by the encirclement of a few remaining
capitalist countries by the world socialist system. The advent of such a
situation is now not a thing of distant future. But if any infatuation makes us
inclined to ignore the stern reality that the socialist camp is, even today,
encircled by the imperialist war camp and that war is still continuing in
various forms of local and partial wars which are always fraught with the danger
of escalating into large scale war, it will not only create difficulties in
taking concrete measures to ensure the victory of peace, but also ideologically
disarm the working class movements in different countries and add to the
reformist and revisionist tendencies already noticed in the international
communist movement. Even if we leave aside the activities of the party moving in
our country under the name and title of the Communist Party of India, we cannot
help viewing with concern the reaction which the mistaken notion that Lenin's
thesis about the inevitability of wars is now obsolete has produced on the
activities of the different communist parties of the world. Consequent upon the
formation of wrong ideas, the conspiracy by the imperialists to unleash another
world war will be objectively strengthened in spite of desires to the
contrary.

So the
communists must bear in mind that in the existing changed international
situation the possibility of preserving peace and the danger of outbreak of wars
are both equally real. >It would be an
unpardonable mistake to lay unnecessary emphasis on the one and thereby
underestimate the other. And because of such faulty approach, some communist
leaders, in adopting concrete steps to preserve world peace, are putting the
main stress on steps like negotiations with the imperialist-capitalist countries
within and without the UNO, disarmament proposal, peace movement and the policy
of peaceful co-existence of the capitalist and socialist states (these are very
important steps in the matter of maintaining world peace — there is no doubt
about it), while undermining the importance of the tasks of actively supporting
and intensifying the national liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies
and the struggles for the establishment of socialism in the metropolitan
capitalist countries on which itself mainly depends the prospect of overthrowing
imperialism-capitalism, thereby guaranteeing lasting peace in the world. It
would be possible to effectively preserve lasting peace if the significance of
the principal characteristic features of the present-day changed international
situation is properly understood and the task of conducting peace movement is
grounded solidly in intensifying the national liberation movements in colonies
and semi-colonies and the struggles for socialism in capitalist
countries.

A
Marxist-Leninist always approaches every question, be it on 'war and peace' or
on 'peaceful co-existence of capitalist and socialist systems' or on any other
matter, with the sole object of accelerating the process of revolution. So in
conducting a serious political movement like the present-day peace movement, a
communist must always keep it in mind that the purpose of the mighty peace
movement is not simply to preserve peace at all costs as bourgeois pacifists
hold. If we intend to realize the revolutionary significance of the policy of
peaceful co-existence and peace movement, we are to bear some points in mind. At
the time of the great Russian Revolution, the workers and other exploited masses
of Russia had to fight not only the Czar and the forces of internal reaction but
also the powerful imperialist interventionists, defeat them and maintain and
consolidate the power captured through the revolution. The Chinese people, too,
had to overthrow not only the Chiang regime but also the military might of the
USA. But in the existing changed international situation, if the imperialists
are compelled to follow the policy of peaceful co-existence and non-intervention
in the domestic affairs of other countries by the force of peace movement, it
would be easier for the working class and other exploited masses of the people
in the capitalist countries and colonies and semi-colonies to overthrow their
respective enemies through revolution. The revolutionary significance of the
present-day peace movement and of the policy of peaceful co-existence lies
precisely in the creation of that very favourable condition in the international
situation which makes it possible for the revolutionary forces in the capitalist
and colonial and semi-colonial countries to conduct revolutionary battles
against their respective enemies without foreign intervention and interference.
Thus the world-wide peace movement or the policy of peaceful co-existence is
neither a political manoeuvre nor a subtle device to gain time for war
preparations as many pseudo-Marxists think; on the contrary, if correctly
understood, each of them is one of the very many complex revolutionary means to
accelerate the course of socialist revolution in metropolitan capitalist
countries and national liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies which
in the present situation are part and parcel of world proletarian revolution. As
a result of the superiority of the forces of peace in some respects over the
forces of war and the relative weakness of imperialism in recent times compared
to the socialist countries, conditions for the speedy growth and development of
revolutionary movement in capitalist countries and the national liberation
struggles in colonies and semi-colonies have become much more favourable now
than before. Peace movement and the policy of peaceful co-existence should be
conducted in such a way as to accelerate the speed of revolutionary movements.
Failure to understand that the real significance of the existing changed
international situation lies precisely in the appearance of these favourable
conditions is mainly responsible for lack of correct idea about the character,
possibility and limitation of the present-day peace movement. Due to failure in
realizing the exact nature of internal contradictions within the imperialist
camp and those between the newly independent bourgeois states in Asia and
Africa, on the one hand, and the Western imperialist countries, on the other,
and also infatuation with the question of peace, many harmful acts and
activities of the newly independent capitalist countries are being tolerated
even in the present changed international situation. In fact, the policy of
peaceful co-existence as is being followed in practice by the socialist
countries in relation to some of these newly independent capitalist countries is
tantamount to appeasement in some respect.

In the present
changed international situation, most favourable to the development of
revolutionary movements, in spite of securing very many victories through peace
movement and policy of peaceful co-existence, how far have the ideological and
organizational aspects of the revolutionary movements of the peoples in
capitalist and colonial countries gained in strength ? On no plea can the answer
to this very important question be avoided. If the nature and extent of the
struggle for emancipation from the yoke of capitalism and other mass movements
by the peoples of India, Burma and other newly independent capitalist countries
of Asia and Africa are examined in the light of the above question, it would be
perfectly clear that the revolutionary movements in these countries are being
rendered ideologically impotent in practice. Only the anti-imperialist and
anti-war acts and policies of the ruling bourgeoisie of these countries that are
objectively helping to maintain world peace are being eulogized and
ostentatiously highlighted and highly commended while no notice is being taken
of (1) the fundamental difference between the consistent peace policy of the
socialist states and the undependable policy of peace pursued by the newly
independent capitalist countries, (2) the increasing tendency of fascization and
appearance of fascistic characteristics in diverse forms in the state structure
and administrative setup of these countries, (3) the developing trend of
imperialism and expansionism which in the case of some of these countries is
assuming a naked form at times and, above all, (4) of the fact that these
newly independent capitalist countries are going to play, more and more, the
main role virtually as agents of world imperialism in Asia and Africa in the
matter of forcible suppression of the growth and development of socialist
revolutionary struggles. And there is no attempt on the part of so-called
communist parties whatsoever to educate the people by conducting relentless
ideological struggles on these points.

Besides, since
the 20th Congress of the CPSU, it is being propagated through the speeches and
writings of the leaders of the CPSU that the possibility for peaceful
realization of socialist revolution in a number of capitalist countries has
become an objective reality in the present favourable international situation.
Elucidating this point, Khrushchev said, "In these circumstances the working
class, by rallying round itself the toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all
patriotic forces and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are
incapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and
landlords, is in a position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the
popular interest, to capture a stable majority in parliament and transform the
latter from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of
people's will''. Though up till now these leaders have not altogether discarded
the law of violent revolution, yet day by day they are putting more and more
emphasis on the possibility of peaceful realization of socialist revolution in
the capitalist countries as a general rule in the changed international
situation. This view is, no doubt, creating a dangerous confusion in the sphere
of ideological struggles by the communists and has already given a fillip to the
existing revisionist tendencies.

It has been
discussed earlier how the danger of outbreak of wars in various forms is being
underestimated by the leaders of the CPSU in discussing the question of the
possibility of preserving peace. The confusions are due to two factors : (1)
failure to understand that the law of inevitability of wars between
imperialist-capitalist countries in the era of imperialism is still valid, and
(2) Khrushchev and other leaders have confused the relative weakness of world
imperialism in unleashing a world war against the opposition of the tremendously
mighty forces of peace with the power of the bourgeoisie and its state to
suppress the revolutionary struggle of the working class and other exploited
masses of the peoples in a given country. These theorists fail to understand
that notwithstanding the superiority of the forces of peace over the forces of
war and many spectacular victories to the credit of the former, the world
situation has not changed to that stage when the capitalist class, being afraid
of the socialist countries, does not dare to forcibly crush the revolutionary
struggles in its own country. There is not a single instance in history that can
prove our above statement to be incorrect, rather history furnishes us with
innumerable instances of ordinary movements by the people based on very modest
economic and democratic demands being ruthlessly suppressed in the typically
fascistic fashion by the capitalists. Even in countries with long
parliamentary tradition, parliamentary democratic rights and privileges are
being gradually curtailed. Even to the bourgeoisie, Parliament is fast losing
its utility. Fascism is manifesting itself in diverse forms more markedly than
before in the state structure and administrative set-up of all capitalist
countries, developed or backward. In the face of this stern reality, it is
impossible for any Marxist-Leninist to advocate the theory of peaceful
transition from capitalism to socialism, unless he is thoroughly overwhelmed by
bourgeois humanist illusions.

But the
bankruptcy in thought has found its most glaring expression in the concept of
establishing socialism peacefully "by transforming parliament from an organ
serving the class interest of the bourgeoisie into a genuine instrument of
people's will." It is true that from the theoretical point of view the
possibility of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism is not
absolutely ruled out in Marxism-Leninism. Whether in the changed international
situation now, peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism is possible or
not, is a debatable question. We do not consider it possible. But even if it is
assumed that peaceful realization is possible, the theory of establishing
socialism peacefully by "transforming parliament from an organ of bourgeois
democracy into a genuine instrument of people's will" is philistine and in no
way compatible with Marxism-Leninism. Parliament developed in a particular
historical phase in the development of production as the superstructure of a
given economic base to serve the interests of a definite class as its political
form of administration; had these theorists taken the trouble of understanding
it, they would have surely understood that proletarian democracy, whatever be
its form according to the objective conditions obtaining in different countries,
is fundamentally different in character from bourgeois democracy (all kinds of
bourgeois institutions) and hence, the political institution of the one cannot
serve as the political institution of the other. Parliament, which is the
superstructure of capitalist economy, the basis of capitalist society, cannot
serve as the superstructure of socialist society. It not only cannot serve as
the superstructure of socialist economy, the basis of socialist society, but is
also bound to obstruct the growth and development of the basis of socialist
society. Thus elimination of the superstructure of the old basis is also an
important condition for the growth and development of the new basis. To a
Marxist-Leninist, peaceful realization of socialist revolution in a capitalist
country, if at all possible, means peaceful capture of power by the working
class, the bourgeoisie offering no resistance, and peaceful destruction of the
bourgeois state machine and establishment in its place of a new type of state,
the proletarian state. It does not mean peaceful transformation of the bourgeois
state into a proletarian state through reform, which can never be done. It also
means the peaceful dissolution of Parliament and replacing it by the workers'
democratic political institution and not peaceful transformation of Parliament
into an 'instrument of people's will' which also cannot be done. Lastly,
whatever may be the immediate results of the political discussion, there is no
doubt that it will help in raising the very low level of ideological
consciousness of the communists so noticeable in recent times. So we welcome it
and this should continue.